The Seduction of the Signal
In the first article of this series, I noted that while every organisation claims to seek agile, curious minds, their hiring systems remain tragically devoted to job descriptions and familiar logos—as if true potential could only be certified by prior branding and task déjà vu.
This paradox—valuing potential in theory but not in practice—isn't an accident. It's the outcome of over-reliance on proxy signals: the company worked at, the specific certification acquired, the exact title fit of their previous role. These signals, we're told, offer shortcuts to talent identification. In reality, they often obscure what matters most—what the candidate will need to accomplish at their new organisation.
Ethnographic studies of elite professional service firms often find that hiring decisions tend to reflect cultural matching rather than actual skills—think similar to the hiring manager in terms of leisure pursuits, experiences, and self-presentation styles. Candidates were judged not for what they could do but for how comfortably they fit into existing norms and expectations. It's not so much a war for talent as a search for sameness.
In this article, I build on that challenge and argue hiring processes that make a break from the common signal-based approach to substance-based formation—investing in what people can become, not just what they are—gain a long-term strategic advantage. But first, I need to unpack why signalling is so deeply embedded and why substance is so frequently missed.
The Tyranny of Pedigree
At its most flattering, signalling is efficiency. Hiring Managers and Talent Teams receive hundreds—sometimes thousands—of applications. Shortlisting by recognisable names—exact job title, company name, certifications—appears to reduce noise. Or as rejection letters would have it 'surface candidates more closely aligned to the role'. The trouble is, it also reduces diversity, breadth, depth, and ultimately, potential.
Consider the so-called 'talent shortage' in emerging tech platforms like Workday or Salesforce. Organisations routinely bemoan the absence of qualified candidates. Yet, as ThunderLabs reports, there are dozens of adjacent-skilled professionals capable of upskilling quickly. The real shortage is not talent—it's imagination in the hiring team.
This rigidity creates perverse incentives. Candidates tailor CVs to echo job descriptions. Employers mistake precise keyword matches with actual capability. And the entire system becomes a theatre of credential mimicry.
Worse still, the checklist mentality penalises those whose trajectories deviate from the script: career changers, caregivers returning to work, migrants with unrecognised qualifications, or generalists who span multiple disciplines. These profiles signal uncertainty—not because they lack value, but because they lack familiarity.
And in hiring, familiarity too often masquerades as competence.
Substance as Strategy
What the signal-based hiring approach teaches us is that it filters for conformity. However, substance-based hiring develops for contribution.
Let's contrast the two more systematically.